"The OECD, IMF and IEA all define subsidies to include tax concessions, royalty holidays, and government-funded infrastructure. "

Do they? Show me where the IMF says that.

"government-funded infrastructure". That's just rhetoric and mangling definitions. Under that definition, governments filling in pot-holes on city streets is a subsidy to the Uber Eats.

"Either way, nitpicking over whether to call it a subsidy or a rebate doesn’t change the reality"

Oh good. It was a subsidy until it wasn't.

The alarmist community is desperate to dig up false claims of subsidies to coal/gas etc because they realise that the massive subsidies paid in renewables port barrelling exposes the real purpose of the renewables mantra.

"If your “massive string of data” exists, produce it."

Done and done. I showed you the data showing the direct relationship between the levels of renewables and electricity costs. It went over your head.

Nukes are missing in action. Why?
Their arce is still on fire from what they were spruking why not a rerun.
In other words they are hopelessly lost, so what would you suggest for whatever you are proposing that is hidden in plain sight and not to be talked about. In other words you mugs cannot bring to the surface what may cause a total obliveration.

Yes, they do, mhaze.

//Do they? Show me where the IMF says that.//

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022. Subsidies include both explicit subsidies-undercharging for supply costs-and implicit subsidies-undercharging for environmental costs and forgone consumption taxes."
http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281

And here are links for the two others you, for some reason, didn’t request:

IEA:
http://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-clean-energy-transitions-time-for-a-new-approach

OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fossil-fuel-support.html

//"government-funded infrastructure". That's just rhetoric and mangling definitions. Under that definition, governments filling in pot-holes on city streets is a subsidy to the Uber Eats.//

There’s a difference between universal public goods like city roads, and taxpayer-funded rail lines, ports, and power stations built specifically to serve coal. One is general infrastructure, the other is industry-targeted support. Pretending they’re the same is your mangling, not mine.

//"Oh good. It was a subsidy until it wasn't."//

No, it was always a subsidy. Or, as you would put it: "i DiDn'T sAy ThAt!!1!"

I said even if you stripped out fuel tax credits completely, coal has always leaned on public support: rail and ports, royalty holidays, underfunded rehab bonds, and state-guaranteed demand. You can call it subsidy, rebate, or concession - it doesn’t change the underlying reality.

//"The alarmist community is desperate to dig up false claims..."//

This is just rhetoric. The irony is, I’ve backed every point with international institutions (IMF, IEA, OECD) while you’re stuck asserting without evidence. If anyone’s desperate, it isn’t me.

//"Done and done. I showed you the data..."//

Where?

You waved at "a string of data" and produced nothing. Meanwhile, AEMO, CSIRO, IEA and Lazard all publish real datasets showing renewables are the cheapest new-build generation and consistently drive down wholesale prices.

If you have actual sources, cite them. Otherwise, "I already proved it" is just another empty line.

Unfortunately our forum friends from the far right, see renewables as some kind of left wing ideology promoted by the evil Woke/Marxists,
Paul1405,
well, that's exactly what it is ! An expensive ideology that does not add up in the long run. They should concentrate on real possible technology ! One that doesn't create yet another bandwagon !

Global warming is well and truely here after 40 years of denialism that is how far behind we are. Thailand just had 300mm of rain in no time flat.
Nukes are poison, so what is your alternative.,
Black tar, coal, are in the forbidden bin.
may be we can catch some lightning bolts.

Indy,

We don't want another aged welfare bandwagon, all those useless old farts with their snouts in the taxpayer trough! I know of one blow in who as soon as the ship docked he was into a taxpayer funded cab and off to the nearest Centrelink office, where he's been camped for the last 50 years!